Back to school: why we should embrace autonomy

The move towards school autonomy is part of a wider movement arguing that choice and diversity in education is "a tide that lifts all boats" in terms of raising standards, writes Kevin Donnelly.

With schools returning this week, the usual debates have already started about the respective merits of government and non-government schools and the best way to make Australian students more competitive given unsatisfactory results in international literacy and numeracy tests.

But equally if not more important is the fact that over the next 12 months the Federal Government plans to review the roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth, states and territories when it comes to managing schools.

As noted in Issues Paper 4 - Roles and Responsibilities in Education, released just before Christmas, the hope is to identify the best way to balance accountability, subsidiarity, equity, efficiency, effectiveness and fiscal sustainability across Australia's education systems and schools.

While not dealt with in the issues paper, one solution, in opposition to a command and control, top-down, centralised model, involves a more market-driven approach to education represented by school autonomy and increased diversity and choice involving well resourced government and non-government schools.

Education systems both here and overseas are implementing programs like the Commonwealth-funded Independent Public Schools initiative designed to give government schools greater autonomy.

Similar to the flexibility and freedom enjoyed by non-government schools, the belief is that increased local control, what is known as subsidiarity in the Catholic system, leads to stronger outcomes and schools being better able to reflect the needs and aspirations of their communities.

The move to school autonomy is part of a wider movement arguing that choice and diversity in education, represented by the existence of government and non-government schools, is "a tide that lifts all boats" in terms of raising standards.

Unfortunately, Australia's major public sector teacher union, the Australian Education Union, has a long history of opposing school choice, represented by the existence and continued funding of non-government schools, and is also opposed to granting government schools increased, albeit limited, autonomy.

In its submission to the Gonski school funding review commissioned when Julia Gillard was education minister, the AEU opposes the proposition that "all systems and students have an equal entitlement to public funding".

The union goes on to argue, "Although substantial government funding to private schools has become entrenched in Australia in recent decades, we believe there is no pre-existing, pre-determined entitlement to public funding; i.e. there is no a priori justification for public funding of private schools."

The AEU bases its argument on the belief that only government schools are open to all and best able to serve the common good. As argued by Angelo Gavrielatos, the then AEU president, when criticising market-driven initiatives like school vouchers, "A voucher system to fund each individual's education represents the absolute commodification of education, smashing any notion of public education for the common good."

The union argues "public schools have a legal and moral responsibility to be open to all students; private schools do not and are not". The AEU also argues that the existence of non-government schools "residualises" government schools and diverts much needed funding to Catholic and independent schools that are supposedly already well resourced and privileged.

Ignored is that government schools are not open to all students as many are selective secondary schools where enrolment is based on academic ability. It is also the case that many of the most successful and popular government schools in metropolitan areas are in enrolment zones where only wealthy parents can afford to buy property.

The Australian Education Union is also apposed to school autonomy programs like the Independent Public Schools initiatives. A research paper commissioned by the union claims that "there is no evidence that devolution in its myriad forms has itself led to improved student achievement".

Ignored is the research by the German academic Ludger Woessmann that concludes, "Across countries, students tend to perform better in schools that have autonomy in personnel and day-to-day decisions."

Instead of welcoming increased flexibility and local control over schools, however limited in nature, the AEU clearly prefers government schools to remain under the control of centralised bureaucracies.

Such a situation ensures that there is an incentive for teachers to join the union, thus increasing membership, and guarantees that the union and its executive have a major role to play in negotiating industrial agreements.

The AEU's view is in opposition to concerns raised by principals' associations about over regulation and micro-management and the need for greater school autonomy. A survey of principals showed the presence of significant stress caused by the "lack of autonomy/authority".

A recent survey of Australian primary school principals, while arguing that autonomy, by itself, is not enough to guarantee improved outcomes, concludes that school leaders prefer increased flexibility and choice at the local level.

In relation to curriculum, the survey concludes that "The ideal level of freedom reported by all principals is greater than the current level. Government school principals see a 30% increase in significant or total freedom to 70% as ideal."

Notwithstanding the AEU's opposition to Independent Public Schools, it is also true that an evaluation of the early stages of the Western Australian program presents a favourable account. The evaluation concludes, "Overall, the story of the implementation of the IPS initiative is a positive one, with the concept of IPS being agreeable to most principals in Western Australia".

Not unexpectedly, schools are more effective and more conducive to stronger learning outcomes when teachers chosen to teach in a particular school support its direction. It is easier to imbue a sense of common purpose and collegiality when there is such agreement and it is also important to be able to tailor the curriculum to suit local circumstances.

As argued by Melbourne-based Professor Brian Caldwell:

There is a powerful educational logic to locating a higher level of authority, responsibility and accountability for curriculum, teaching and assessment at the school level. Each school has a unique mix of students in respect to their needs, interests, aptitudes and ambitions; indeed, each classroom has a unique mix.

It should also be acknowledged that the Australian Education Union and one of its predecessors, the Victorian Secondary Teachers Association, have not always apposed school autonomy. During the 70s and 80s, a time of de-schooling and the rise of community-based schools freed from centralised and bureaucratic management, progressive teacher unions advocated innovation, flexibility and choice at the local level.

Such is the evidence supporting school autonomy that the UK's 'Schools White Paper 2010' concludes, "Across the world, the case for the benefits of school autonomy has been established beyond doubt".

While placing a number of caveats, a 2014 report evaluating school autonomy by the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission is also positive when it states, "Increased autonomy, effectively implemented, has the potential to enhance performance and therefore the competitiveness of the government school sector...".

Dr Kevin Donnelly is a senior research fellow at the Australian Catholic University and he taught for 18 years in government and non-government schools.

Tory Boy:

Politically Incorrect:

28 Jan 2015 11:22:07am

No, but the thought of my tax dollars funding trillion dollar private religious institution to teach things that are by definition not knowledge to impressionable children that will mistake it for knowledge?

harvey:

28 Jan 2015 12:06:09pm

Agreed PI, why should I fund a school founded to push a religion when I'm not particularly religious. I went to a public school and it was fine and my fellow students did pretty well in the world depending on their talents.

I look at the list of top schools in the HSC results and really you can't see where all that money has gone.

And to top it all off, none of these religious bodies getting my tax pays Any Tax At All. Some have businesses which are terrific little earners.

Dove:

28 Jan 2015 11:42:49am

I'm delighted that you acknowledge my principles, although I'm not sure where you got the idea that I don't like choice? What we do with choice is just as important as having it. The author wants schools to have the choice of charging fees, of the choice of parents to have to take their kids out of schools because they no longer can afford it, he wants the choice of each school to run their own curricula, teach their own subjects, he wants each school to have the choice of setting their own academic standards and he wants the choice for religion to be a part of it. For old Harrovians this might sound like the very acme of sense, but thankfully the rest of us have the choice to laugh him out of the playground

John51:

28 Jan 2015 12:32:13pm

But Tory Boy the whole choice argument is a big fat furphy. If parents can not afford to live in the more wealth suburbs than their children have little choice. If parents can not afford to pay the fees to send their children to independent or private schools they have little choice. As I said the whole choice argument is a big fat furphy. And a political one at that.

As for education outcomes. What school you send your children to all to often has other reasons than education outcome if we look at the actual facts. Too much of this debate is based in an ideological argument and class based argument than improving the education outcomes of all. So lets get the debate back to Gonski's argument of funding being based on need, the need of the child, of all children.

gd:

28 Jan 2015 11:13:23am

Love the way in australian we blame the schools for our childrens educational outcomes. despite countless studies showing that the biggest predictor of academic outcomes in 1st world countries is not money or type of school but parental !

Much easier to blame the government than look in the mirror. can't wait to see the next PISA results and see australia sliding even lower.

Ann:

28 Jan 2015 12:26:26pm

The way that parental influence may manifest, however, can have a direct impact on schools. In some of the best educated countries, teaching is considered a upstanding profession and is paid well - because parents value teaching and are willing to pay higher taxes for it to be funded.

If parents don't care much about education it will have lead-on effects in all sorts of ways that make schools themselves less effective places.

bonzono:

28 Jan 2015 4:17:48pm

you'd be pretty disingenuous to pretend that school does not have a monumental impact on students.sure, parents do too, but you don't be naive and try to push the line that it's purely parents - it aint.

Mowif:

28 Jan 2015 11:45:33pm

Rather than imagining, why don't you actually read the curriculum? It's freely available online. Just Google "Australian Curriculum". It's not perfect and it doesn't pretend to be. You'll find lashings of the word "should" and not many appearances of "must". As a teacher myself I have yet to meet another who does not lament that the curriculum is too broad. I think you will find your fears of "children learning one perspective" unfounded.

geggyg:

28 Jan 2015 2:20:44pm

So you would happy if the Principal ( at a school that was remote and parents only choice was their or send their kids to boarding school which they couldn't afford) set a curriculum that didn't teach evolution , that the world is only 6,000 yrs old , humans rode dinosaurs , the earth is flat , science and modern medicine is bad , slavery was actually good, serfdom was good as ordinary people didn't have to worry about anything their benevolent protectors looked after them white settlers treated our indigenous people well , women shouldn't get a tertiary education , universal suffrage was bad for women .You know all those things left wing interest groups are not against

Mowif:

28 Jan 2015 11:21:11pm

So you're not happy for a (hopefully) democratic government with the resources and advice of many of the best minds in the country to carefully construct a curriculum over a number of years, but the whims of your local Principal will do fine. Have you actually seen the curriculum? As a teacher I would much rather spend the "holidays" planning how to inspire my students than reinventing the wheel.

gerard oosterman:

28 Jan 2015 8:49:10am

Yes, let's all get into Evocca type colleges, spend fortunes and earn dodgy certificates with no prospect of employment. Yes let's leave it all to market forces.Private schools, private colleges Oi,oi,oi.

stupendus:

28 Jan 2015 8:52:24am

but government schools are totally and utterly useless, their standards and results are poor and their teachers are apathetic, more funding will not help improve standrds, a private school has high standards and world class results, its not just the money but the attitude, if government funding is removed from private schools our future generations will only be fit to be politicians as they wont be able to read or write, let alone add up....

Mr Teacher:

28 Jan 2015 9:35:02am

Having taught at both private and Government schools, I can only endorse your comments. Schools such as Redcliffe State High and Dakabin Hign in Queensland are appallingly run, compared to their private competitors and apathy of teachers is a major factor in the problems schools such as these are facing.

Mr Teacher:

28 Jan 2015 9:56:02am

No, it is not just about money. It was about the whole attitude - the apathy was appalling. The culture was badly in need of reform. I am hoping the reintroduction of external exams will force those schools to lift their standards.

philly:

28 Jan 2015 12:05:27pm

Agree but the apathy mainly comes from many of the parents. I taught 10 years in the State system in rural Victoria and I was astounded at how many parents simply either didn't care about their children's schooling, viewed the schools with hostility and even encouraged their children to rebel and to show a poor attitude. I don't think its because teachers no longer care, I think its because so many in the state system have been simply defeated by a system that gives students diplomatic immunity and allows disruptive elements to ruin the learning environment of entire schools. I do agree that there are some under-performing, lazy and in-ept teachers and in the state system, they are allowed to continue in their roles with minimal accountability or genuine scrutiny. But they are so well protected, they are virtually un-sackable unless they do something extreme such as physically assault or sexually molest a student. Having taught in the private system for three years, I have noted two crucial differences- teachers in the private system are under greater scrutiny and parents care a lot more about their children's education. On parent/teacher interview evenings, 90-95% of the parents turn up in the private school I work in. In the state schools, you would be lucky if 50% showed up, even though parents in the latter were more likely to work only part-time or be un-employed. I remember one speech night at a state school where in the middle of the program, the school band played a couple of instrumental numbers. Whereupon over the half the parents, thinking it was an interval, got out of their seats and strolled out into the foyer for a smoke. Need I say more.

Ann:

28 Jan 2015 12:30:40pm

And the parents that put their kids in private schools care enough about their education that they would have them there even if it wasn't subsided. Or, you know, they would put their kids in public schools but be actively involved in them as part of parent committees. Obviously when all the parents that "care" get the message that they need to spend money to get their kids the best education that's what they'll do - and all the parents left behind are the ones that don't care that much.

This is the whole reason why we have public systems so the dedicated can put their resolve to work to benefit all of society.

If it didn't work well it wouldn't be working in so many European countries.

IMBY:

28 Jan 2015 1:08:20pm

I studied education and left when qualified teachers couldnt clearly explain what the point of education wasTo prepare student for work: Then we should make it much more like TAFE and subjects like history would have very limited valueTo make good citizens: In other words morals, which most parents I know would disagree upon the morals chosenTeach basic abilities: Then why is not English and Maths the main focus instead of in high school spending about 1/8th of the time in each subject?Be a day care center so parents can go to work: Then why continue to late when students can go about on their own on the weekends anyway?

Education is a jumble of purposes and has lost most of all purposes by trying to be everything. As a jack of all trades, its become a master of none.

Ann:

28 Jan 2015 2:41:04pm

Education is to teach people how to think, and give them a well-rounded grounding in all aspects of learning, logic and thought. Hence physics, chemistry, maths, language, history, geology, social sciences, "home" skills, art and physical aptitude are all taught.

appochimongitus:

29 Jan 2015 8:12:49pm

Prepare for work: Agree, I think in high school the subjects could be more focussed and practical, but some weren't bad at all like my IT class taught useful things albeit not yet at a level that would get you employment - but definitely the correct content and at a pace that pushed most students. Maths, Physics, etc were perfect preparation for my chosen university degree. I think the academic pathway works fine. Some colleagues did industry placements, like a pre-apprentiship. which is a great idea.

Good citizens: Why do you bring up morals?? We don't need to teach that at schools. History for example makes good citizens. A sense of what propaganda is and the knowledge of bad things that citizens allowed to occur in former democracies like pre-Nazi Germany. This is not morals based at all, except perhaps a persuasion to carefully watch what the government is doing and encouraging going to vote.

Basic abilities: The "basics" we all need are taught at primary school. At high school we tend to diversify. See prepare for work.

Day care centre: Seriously, in my opinion older students could work longer hours but these students tend to be able to look after themselves and are assigned a lot of homework which takes hours. Younger students... this is rather difficult... what is necessary for a working family might not be great for youngsters, whereas a stay-at-home mum probably would feel guilty about sending there six-year old to days longer than 6 hours.

aussieinjapan:

28 Jan 2015 12:10:04pm

It is about money because the system as the pay given to teachers is not enough to get the people we need to teach. Those who have qualifications and abilities to teach are drawn to other professions as they see that a teacher's life is lowly paid.

There is also not enough training and support of teachers so that the are able to deal with students who do come from difficult environments. How can we have good soccer players without the skills. The same is to be said of teaching. They need support which involves spending more money.

Private schools have access to financial sources which means that they are in positions to do such. Students who attend such institutions are by their nature more likely to do better than students from lower income earning families. We need to ensure that these students who have the potential to achieve are not left behind just because of the family in which they were born. This is financial discrimination.

Steve_C:

29 Jan 2015 10:49:01am

"...the pay given to teachers is not enough to get the people we need to teach."

What a pile of codswallop!!

As a person who's been a teacher since 1977 - which was a time when the profession of teaching had the same level of respect amongst the wider community as surgeons and business leaders had and have; I've witnessed the change in attitude towards the profession from both within and without; and it's not been for the better - let alone maintaining of the status quo!!

And of course; given the whole edifice of achieving more than what is already known as a primary goal for education has crumbled along with the community respect for the profession, it's only to be expected that the simplistic, easy to digest for cretins assessment of "more money paid will attract better teachers" is offered as a solution!

See; that's an easy and mindless solution that even the thickest of individuals who would prefer the easiest of solutions, can understand.

They cannot - because they haven't been educated to think otherwise; conceive of another solution that might actually involve moves designed to restore the respectability and standing of the profession of teaching in the eyes of the community at large and amongst the so-called 'leaders' of our nation especially.

The current education regime - because it has persisted for long enough now; consists of the blind leading the blind. There are so few teachers who know what respect their profession used to be held in, let alone how that respect compensated any desire for more money!! The respect teachers once had was incentive enough to be the best you could be...

Without respect; even the best teacher, will either give the game away, or expect more reward for having to cope with the crud they're expected to cope with. Teachers are human after all!!!

Fix it!! Don't just throw money at it!! And "autonomy"? Fine if you want "automatons"!!!

muzz:

28 Jan 2015 1:40:00pm

The Private School system has an advantage the Public system doesn't where as it is almost impossible to Expel trouble makers who disrupt and cause serious problems in the public system in the Private system they can expel them and they end up in the Public system .

So the Public system has to deal with the problem children of both systems putting the Public system at a severe disadvantage. In the Private system the parents who use it tend to have higher incomes than most using the Public system so can invest more in their childrens education giving their children an advantage .

din:

Professor Rosseforp:

28 Jan 2015 9:49:26am

The students at these schools are producing excellent results. Selective schools have differing standards. Our local selective school still has a 1970s teaching mentality of "Let's get to the pub at 3 o'clock", and are pretty challenged by the influx of students from Asian and Indian backgrounds who actually expect to learn something at school. The results they are getting are as much culturally-founded as they are products of the selective system.In fact, the selective system in NSW is actively discouraging some bright kids from Anglo backgrounds, as they perceive that selective schools are not for "skippies".

mt_syd:

28 Jan 2015 12:31:02pm

The selective system certainly does have some problems with its selection processes. The selective schools in my area in Sydney includes Baulkham hills and James Ruse. More than 90% of the students in these schools are from an Asian background. There is no evidence that Asians are naturally more capable than any other group, which means that there are a lot of bright non asian kids who are missing out. The reason, of course, is that the entry tests can be gamed by intensive coaching, and are not really very good at identifying talent at all.

I would certainly hesitate to send my kids to one of these schools if they were offered a place because they are now an ethnic mono culture.

gerard oosterman:

28 Jan 2015 9:37:40am

Stupendus:

You are wrong in facts. The top students last year came predominantly from public schools. Private school students also drop out of universities at a much greater rate than those coming from public schools.

Jess:

28 Jan 2015 4:21:46pm

Only if the goal of the private school is to get students into university. If the goal is to direct them towards a career path that is achievable for that particular student and within the students interests they aren't doing such a good job. If they are just directing the student towards university with no regard for how the student will cope with university not only are they setting up the student for failure they are wasting valuable resources that would be better directed to another student.

Middie:

From my experience in teaching there are two main reasons why public school students are less likely to drop out.

1. Public schools are a microcosm of society in general as opposed to the cloistered private school setting. Therefore public students are better equipped to deal with university live.

2 Public school students are better prepared to work independently and therefore meet the dead lines set by Uni. Private school students are much more used to having their 'hand held' during the assessment phase. This is done by private teachers so that their students reach an acceptable standard due to the money parents have paid for the students education.

Steve_C:

29 Jan 2015 11:55:42am

Oh, and don't forget

3. Public school students have developed strategies that cover for their incompetencies, such as 'delegating' fellow students or 'bluffing'/'bullying' their way to the sort of results that will obtain for them what's needed to appear more than competent.

It's so often overlooked in these assessments, that students are capable of manipulating the system and the humans they are surrounded by (including teachers and other staff) in order not to be seen as what they know they are.

Perception of an individual by another individual is more than just important to the sort of result that is ascribed to that individual - it's central!

For some reason, public school students seem to be more adept at manipulating those around them for their own benefit. Perhaps, private school students rely on the perception of where they've been (the old school tie syndrome) to do all that manipulation work for them. In that case, Scot's College, Sydney Boys High, Fort Street Girl's might be better bets than say Blue Mountain's Grammar - despite how Blue Mountain's Grammar is held in such high esteem by the Blue Mountain's City Council.

Maybe that's down to the parents who work at council in senior positions sending their kids to BM Grammar.

Tedd:

28 Jan 2015 9:53:00am

Rubbish. The ATAR scores of govt schools are equal to or surpass those of private schools. My child turned down an offer of a selective school place to go to a good local public high school with their peers. They're all doing well. There are aspects the school needs resources help in, though.

IMBY:

28 Jan 2015 1:15:06pm

Its all impossible to tell. There is no parallel universe of your child in a private school that you can check.

Im of the views that paying for a tutor if a student is keen would be far more successful. Many schools require $8,000 a semester. Lets say you get a tutor for $50 an hour. 160 hours of tuition instead could be quite helpful instead.

Then again your child might respond very well to a particular environment part due to them and part due to how you shared your beliefs with them. So a school may be better either public or private that fits in with your culture.

Then there is out of school or extra curricular activities. So much else could be gained instead of paying for a private school fee.

Comparing schools is pointless unless you can compare students and look far into the future and work out how the students fared not just in economic terms.

mt_syd:

IMBY - fortunately there is some research that has done exactly as you suggest, comparing the outcomes for similar students in the private and public systems.

This research shows that there is little if any gain to be had from the money parents spend on private schools.

The private school system is, in effect, a way to increase the cost of education without increasing overall quality. The proportion of students enrolled at private schools has increased substantially since the Howard government put in place policy to make this happen. But the overall outcomes have not improved - what does this tell you?

Applaudanum:

There was an extensive study, IMBY, that compared the first year university results of thousands of students according to their secondary school education (state, private, independent, religious).

The results show that any perceived academic advantage of the private school system had entirely evaporated within less than one year with private school students achieving, on average, poorer results than their state school educated contemporaries.

splod1:

28 Jan 2015 11:25:10am

stupendus: Your statements statements concerning government and private schools are far too sweeping. After 40 years of teaching in both systems, I can assure you that some government and private schools are utterly useless in some areas, whilst others are extremely effective overall. Some teachers in both systems are apathetic, trotting out the same material and methodology year after year, while others are dynamic, innovative and highly effective. Yes, my friend, there are teachers in both systems who are uninspiring and ineffective. One private school in which I worked was more concerned with results than with learning. Students were taught to jump through hoops and learn "correct" answers and formats by rote and, as a result, learned very little. By year 12, when many such students were asked to select their own areas for research, the common response was, "Which one should I choose, sir?" Initiative and mental flexibility had been drummed out of them. Conversely, many public schools I taught in encouraged students to develop initiative and innovation, resulting in excellent academic results.

graazt:

Applaudanum:

28 Jan 2015 3:02:47pm

You should check out the extensive study conducted by Monash University comparing first year University results according to type of secondary school the students went to.

All those 'high standards', 'world class results' and improved 'attitude' don't appear to benefit students less than twelve months later. State school students, on average, achieved results 5 percentage points higher than their private school contemporaries across all academic disciplines one year into their courses.

jennbrad:

28 Jan 2015 4:42:46pm

Government schools are nut useless. In my city, graduates from the public system are great - confident well educated, articulate, work well together and fit better into a university learning environment that students from private schools. Just look at the full scope of outcomes.

Applaudanum:

28 Jan 2015 5:06:28pm

You must have missed that extensive study, undertaken by an Australian university, that showed state school students received first year university results, that were, on average, 5 percentage points higher than their private school contemporaries.

So much for those high standards, world class results and improved attitude that you mention, stupendus.

Helvi:

28 Jan 2015 9:07:57am

Andrew Scott, an associate professor in politics and policy at Melbourne's Deakin University, has written a book called Northern Lights: The Positive Policy Example of Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway. It's about how these Nordic countries manage natural resources, education, childcare and worker retraining.

When it comes to education, he urges Oz to go to Finland, not to the usual places, Britain and the US.

bonzono:

but to say so out loud means I'm coming too close to being a socialist for most redneck torys. Abbott and his generation are still scared stiff of non-christian reds under the bed.

I'm not happy to pay tax because 1. gina sidesteps her tax 2. it goes to subsidise the local christian church. 3. it goes to funding fighting america's wars 4. we use it to fund building more concentration camps to put refugees in, because we're too stupid to figure out what happens when australia's negative domestic birthrate starts to impact on our economy which is almost entirely dependent on us continuing to pretend our pals china will keep buying our coal and steel (hint, they won't).

I can entirely understand why gina avoids paying tax - it's spent on stupid things. for stupid reasons. if I could avoid paying it, I would too. when they pick up their game and spend it on things that taxes should be spent on, I'll be first in line with my wallet in hand.

Dr Who:

29 Jan 2015 7:17:46am

Hi bonozo

I don't think Gina avoids tax because it gets spent on stupid things - if anything, she's tended to back the side of politics that's more likely to deliver on the precise things you mentioned, and to which you object. In her case, it's just greed.

John51:

28 Jan 2015 3:28:34pm

GST, it is not just about GST. They also have a higher tax rate. Has that one sunk in?

Our problem is Howard sold of our Govt bodies that paid dividends back to government and than gave it all away in tax cuts to the highest income bracket. So we get less in taxes, particularly from the top end of town. And we don't get any dividends from what were government corporations. A lose lose for the rest of us.

Emma:

28 Jan 2015 9:15:32am

All I know is that my kids allocated public primary school looked terrible with leaking roof, broken musical instruments and old fashioned blackboards. That school now is full of red squares on the NAPLAN so it seems my gut was right that it was not what I wanted for my kids. So I went private. Moving onto high school is tougher because I cannot really afford private and I am not eligible to go to the local Catholic because they select for long family history and devotation. So I have probably just paid about $40,000 extra to get a house in the allocated area of the 'good' public school in my region. None of this is what I would call equal.They can make school's autonomous if they get rid of allocation.

mt_syd:

sdrawkcaB:

28 Jan 2015 12:32:29pm

Conversely, my kids went to one of those schools.

Both were dux with ATARs that permit entry into any degree in the country - including dentistry.

When my boy graduated, a kid from a not so well off family in year 10 walked up to him and said 'I am going to beat you'. He didn't, he missed by 0.2 but he too can do any degree in the country including dentistry.

Because my wife and I supported our kids, they were the odd ones out. Because there were odd, they received a disproportionate amount of attention. They became role models. Its cool to be dumb. Its even cooler to see one of your peers take on rich kids in rich schools and smash them.

Let me give you some advice, you as a parent have far more influence on your child's education than any school ever will.

You clearly care deeply. Forget Donnelly. Forget Pyne. Forget Abbott. Forget worrying about your local school. Sit with them and do their work with them. Mark it. Proof read it. Get them to do further bits that schooling thinks is not important. If they read Jane Austin, read it with them. Discuss it over dinner. Ask them what they think. You are furthering their education but way more importantly, you are building bonds with your kids in those difficult teenage years. Most important of all, take that darn iPhone off them and immediately increase their attention span from 6 minutes to over 30. Nothing good ever comes out of a 6 minute attention span.

Ann:

28 Jan 2015 12:38:37pm

Sure that would make them "autonomous", but not equal... just imagine, the "good" schools would not take from their allotment but the best and brightest across the city... and kids in the local area would have to travel a long distance to get to a second-rate (or even third-rate) school.

That is inane. The whole point of public schools is that everyone receives an education without too much hassle, because hassle leads to drop-outs and playing hooky.

If your local public school is so bad, agitate the government to improve it. Get involved yourself. Be willing to pay higher taxes.

IMBY:

28 Jan 2015 1:17:26pm

Why should education spending by parents be countered? If someone wants to pay more for health, transport, housing and so on we dont stop them or try and make the government take out every dollar they put in.

formerteacher:

28 Jan 2015 12:52:28pm

I used to be a teacher but just became disillusioned with the constant cost cutting from the QLD Education Department.

At one point, I was only allowed to photocopy each student 2.5 sheets of paper per month. There was no computers. No textbooks. In the end I had to purchase an $800 data projector out of my own money just so I could teach the kids something!

Once in a fit of rage a student headbutted the wall of my classroom. It took about 6 months for the wall to be repaired. At the end of the year, we found out there was asbestos in the walls of the building.

I ended up resigning after I was transferred to a new school and was told the school didn't offer my specialist teaching area (I have a Bachelor and Masters degree in that area), despite it being a mainstream subject.

IMBY:

28 Jan 2015 1:21:30pm

One thing that annoyed me is schools going without air conditioning. I wrote to my local MP at the time and asked if his office had air conditioning and if it was lost would his staffs performance decrease. If not, please get rid of this expense, if so why are the teachers and students in your electorate different?

It went to the Department of Education so I asked if their central office could turn of its air conditioning until the schools all had working air conditioners. They said they couldnt due to working rights and may face legal action if they did.

Strange the teachers arnt doing that. If anyone sends their child to a school with worse facilities than the department of education or minister, I encourage people to write to them and if not fixed due to double standards try taking legal action of unsuitable working conditions.

Ben Nallay:

28 Jan 2015 9:36:15am

Autonomy sounds good in theory, but these are schools, not remote desert islands. These institutions are tasked with preparing children for survival in future South Timor, and they should lead by example or be punished. These poor dear little kiddies must be taught that autonomy is bad-bad-bad, and do without question exactly what nanny from the government tells you is good, and WE don't want schools in OUR 'community' teaching them that they can do whatever they like because the OH&S studies are not complete and there haven't been enough of them funded and WE need time to think up more believable excuses to force them to join the union on their 18th birthday and toe the line and pay their rightful tithes, ahem, fees, and never do anything on their own without approval of The Party, (including no parties) or they might do something bad-bad-bad and that could cause extra costs to The Taxpayer.

WE don't want autonomy for schools nor autonomy for kiddies nor autonomy for anyone not qualified because that is not part of The System.

kenj:

28 Jan 2015 9:37:08am

I don't think I can do any better than quote Kevin Donnelly from his own blog dated 15 July 2013:

"Unlike every government, Catholic and independent school across Australia that will have to dance to Canberra's tune, New Zealand Charter Schools will have freedom over staffing and the curriculum. Charter Schools will not have to employ registered teachers, follow the national curriculum and will be exempt from the Official Information Act. Now, that's a real education revolution and the opposite of what is occurring in Australia. "

Ann:

28 Jan 2015 12:43:26pm

Not only sharp operators able to see profits, but cheats of all shades.

I've read plenty about charter schools in the UK where they are supposed to take a certain % of their students from the allotment still, an are only allowed a certain % of students as high-achievers for whatever subject the school concerns itself with.

In the example I saw the school's big deal was music. They had their % of talented music students shipped in from outside the allotment... and then they had a % they called "gifted vocal students" and blah blah, just finding ways to get around having to, you know, serve the public area with their public money and infrastructure.

Key thing to understand is, if you want Diddums to go to music prodigy school (or heavens forbid, the "talented sportspeople" schools), cough up the fees yourself. Don't expect the taxpayer to cover it.

Tedd:

28 Jan 2015 9:50:10am

"Ignored is that government schools are not open to all students as many are selective secondary schools where enrolment is based on academic ability. It is also the case that many of the most successful and popular government schools in metropolitan areas are in enrolment zones where only wealthy parents can afford to buy property."

Selective schools were developed to address the range of pupils' talents: admittedly the upper range, which highlights as Donnelly's second sentence and the fact that we need to address learning on the lower talent ranges which disproportionately include lower socio-economic groups.

Jay Somasundaram:

There is a very simple fact that is being ignored in this article, and rarely overtly mentioned by educators.

A very important, perhaps the most important, factor in school quality is the quality of students the school attracts.

In a market system, we WILL get schools that attract the best students, the parents willing to subsidise the school and the skills to provide good governance, and the best teachers. Conversely we will end up with schools with dysfunctional students, teachers with high burn-out rates, low income, often dysfunctional parents.

This article does not offer solutions for the latter group - and this is the most important group we need to address.

Ben Nallay:

28 Jan 2015 10:24:07am

"the most important group"

Why do you discriminate like that? Squeaky wheel gets more grease theory? Grease is scarce and the trolley is already wonky at both ends. If you squirt the grease on the front wheels, the back ones will follow more smoothly and quietly in the right direction.

Ben Nallay:

The voice from the back axle squeaks as predicted. The grease that drips off the front wheels onto the ground gets picked up by the back ones as the trolley moves in a straight direction, Chocko.

Furthermore, if the back wheels did somehow imaginarily seize and fall off the back of the trolley, it could still skid along with the front wheels operational if pushed hard enough, however if the front wheels were to suffer the same misfortune, the trolley would nosedive into the carpark at the front and somersaultingly topple over, spilling the weekly groceries onto the hot bitumen as well as most probably causing a fall and serious injury to yo momma. You never got your diploma in trolley collecting, that's obvious.

Ben Nallay:

28 Jan 2015 1:08:22pm

You're just discriminating against intelligent students, and there's mt_syd up there confusing intelligence with affluence, and now we get Gonski in for the mounting crescendo.

There's a link between success and intelligence, so there's a link between money and intelligence, and there's a link between intelligence and parental intelligence, so there's a link between intelligence and parental money. There's a link. Fine!

There's also a link between crystal-meth and tooth decay so does that mean that everyone who goes to the dentist must be an ice addict? Just because you worked out that there is some kind of relationship between samples of two different things, that does not definitely indicate that the same relationship applies to ALL members of those two different sets. Having a toothache does not mean you're an ice addict, because teeth have been aching for a lot longer through history than ice addicts. Don't be fooled.

Consider that some people don't want to be Einstein. Maybe we're not suited to it AND we don't care for it? Discriminating against would-be academics, (who come from all kinds of rich and poor families just in case you never met any), to throw The Taxpayers' Money at second-rate teachers desperate enough to force-feed unwilling students for the sakes of their own salaries is an excellent way to demonstrate that brains are overrated by example.

There's another reply on the squeaky wheel thing somewhere around probably lost in the archives by now. At least it gives them something to do, as they say.

Tim-Tam Monster:

28 Jan 2015 2:20:30pm

"There's a link between success and intelligence, so there's a link between money and intelligence, and there's a link between intelligence and parental intelligence, so there's a link between intelligence and parental money. There's a link. Fine!"

Well, perhaps Mr Pyne - the Minister for Education - can take a trip to Norway to see how they do it. Why do we have to copy The U.S. education system?

Ben Nallay:

28 Jan 2015 4:44:27pm

Hello Tim-Tam. I've been mulling over whether to reply (figuratively mulling over, not literally) because I've been doing a fair bit of work in this thread already and I don't want to rain on Dr Kevin's parade too much. However, but you mentioned Norway and education in the same sentence. What else am I to do?

I've only ever known two Norwegians, one of whom was a class mate at uni when we were both into 1st year psychology for want of something better to do with our times, but Ove had girl problems. He was 6'2" and blond so he couldn't really help that sort of distraction, but he found it hard to pay attention in the lectures, where as poor ol' lonesome me was doing the morning lectures and then going back to make it for the evening repeat lectures, just to make sure I remembered every word.

Come time to nosh up our semester assignments, Ove had a serious problem because he was a surety to fail the unit - he hadn't spent more than I'd guess a couple of hours alone in his room to do anything let alone study that whole semester, and he asked me a favour. The Favour.

I wrote his and mine on the same subtopic - developmental - and made sure to include in certain the few sometimes on thereabouts when in occasion has the past tense mixed up with present tense to out make in English of the student from international seeming like it was him was writing and not cheated for he did. He got the second highest marks in the class of 200 1st year students and I scored somewhere just above the middle, for my own entry without the intentional grammatical errors.

Sea Mendez:

Ozchucky:

28 Jan 2015 12:25:49pm

Thank you Jay,I think you raise a good point, about the quality of students the school attracts.Please allow me to suggest some broad categories of students;* Strivers - those who succeed virtually regardless of disadvantage and barriers.* Normal - those who succeed given opportunity and encouragement.* Strugglers - those who try but fail in some aspects of their education.* Outlaws - those who choose not to be educated, and often engage in behaviours that are destructive of the education of others and the efforts of teachers.

A central problem faced by many conventional government secondary schools is that they are effectively forced to take in almost all the Outlaws that present for enrolment. The consequences for the entire school community are devastating. As you say, "dysfunctional students (and) teachers with high burn-out rates".In Victoria, 50 per cent of new teachers are gone within five years.

The solution is not "more money". A range of solutions is required beginning with separation of the Outlaws from the conventional school community, and the creation of new educational contexts in which the Outlaws will respond, learn, mature, and develop into positive citizens. The Outlaws need to be a focus of educational research and creativity.

We have tried denial, covering up, giving the Outlaws "a good talking to", wall papering over the cracks, not keeping records, or keeping records and doing nothing with them, smiling in the face of disaster, bluster, blaming, walking away, and just leaving to the teachers to cope.

Maryanne:

28 Jan 2015 1:08:19pm

The problem of Outlaws is easy: don't force them to stay at school when they clearly loathe it. Up in Armidale the Backtrack program transforms young troublemakers by getting them welding farm gates at the men's shed, fencing, training a dog and being responsible for it, helping out with the cleanup after floods or fires. Most of all being around men. This was how, until compulsory schooling was extended, boys used to be socialized. They actually LIKE being useful and making stuff with older men, and they HATE sitting in a classroom being taught useless crap by mainly female teachers. Unfortunately I've heard that the bureacrats are already about to ruin this wonderful initiative by demanding formal training etc. Aaargh!

Ozchucky:

28 Jan 2015 1:32:24pm

Thank you Ann,I agree with you.I have seen other successful programs which have a non-classroom basis. There should be more of them.Variety is important, so that the professionals who work with the Outlaws, and the Outlaws themselves, have a wide range of positive options to choose from.Otherwise, another option is prison.

godbothered:

28 Jan 2015 1:48:24pm

Ozchucky,

as someone with nearly a quarter of a century of teaching experience, please accept my gratitude for posting such a genuinely brilliant analysis of one of the biggest problems facing public schools, along with a solution that I have been espousing for years.

firthy:

Ann:

28 Jan 2015 12:45:16pm

Exactly. This isn't about making super-perfect schools where everything is sunshine and lollipops, it's about the inequality in a system where the good things are given to places that are already good, and the bad things given to places that are already bad.

Ben Nallay:

Tory Boy:

28 Jan 2015 11:07:50am

Bigoted nonsense which says more about you than either school system. I chose a private school, and consequently few holidays and a very unfashionable car, precisely because it does inspire my children to strive for a better understanding of all aspects of life. And know, we get very little government funding so I don't need to thank you for your tax contribution.

Johnny2:

kenj:

28 Jan 2015 10:39:27am

It's all about tribes. Our parents should be able to choose our tribe for us at birth. We might be wealthy or just born into a cult that believes in preparing for end times. No matter. What does matter is that we should be able to associate at all times and in all ways with our fellow tribal members and distance ourselves from the train wreck that is the rest of society. At no stage should we be obliged to meet or engage with other tribes, nor should we be asked to fund them through our taxes. If we truly believe in individual choices and autonomy then we should accept that the broader society has no claim on us or how we raise our children. The damaged and vulnerable others are the responsibility of someone else -- possibly big government. I'm leaving for the planet Venus in 2035 when the world ends and I expect to take my children and my cash with me.

firthy:

Ben Nallay:

28 Jan 2015 7:02:44pm

I can't recall your other argument, Ann, whatever it was. If you're concerned over kenj's planned expedition in twenty years' time, there's a good chance we can revisit whatever it maybe sometime between now and then. Just be aware that twenty years is a long long long time in politics.

Alpo:

28 Jan 2015 11:01:35am

"the hope is to identify the best way to balance accountability, subsidiarity, equity, efficiency, effectiveness and fiscal sustainability across Australia's education systems and schools."... Is that Neoliberal speak for full privatization of education?

"involves a more market-driven approach to education"... Yes, it is Neoliberal speak for full privatization of education!

"a tide that lifts all boats".... The privatization of public education is the "storm that sinks less well off public schools". Thanks to the Unions for protecting the economically disadvantaged sectors of our population... and no, I'm not just talking about the "poor poor", I am also talking about the poor Middle Class!

" It is also the case that many of the most successful and popular government schools in metropolitan areas are in enrolment zones where only wealthy parents can afford to buy property."... Ha, ha, usual trick: Try to bash the poor with the excuse that in fact you are bashing the rich!... Nonsense! The point here is to help public schools in poor or middle class areas.

A pocketful of wry:

28 Jan 2015 11:09:50am

"The move to school autonomy is part of a wider movement arguing that choice and diversity in education, represented by the existence of government and non-government schools, is "a tide that lifts all boats" in terms of raising standards"

I'm getting horribly confused. Are boats floating around now supposed to be a good thing or not?

This is what happens when someone strong and tough and ruggedly resolute gets replaced by a dribbling hand-wringer like Dutton - once simple-to-understand slogans become garbled and unusable. The Greens and the CFMEU have probably got a hand in this mess as well.

Oaktree :

Sinekal:

28 Jan 2015 11:10:06am

There is a fundamental in education that many people recognize but very few espouse. That is that education is not only the development of individuals capacity to explore, identify, reason and apply, but also to apply discipline to the process of brain function.

With the death of rote learning ( no I don't advocate its return) the capacity of children's developing minds to absorb and subsequently recall information has been diminished. It has been replaced by the acceptance that knowing how to find a piece of information is more important than remembering it.

So few of them remember their friends phone numbers for instance, but can dial them in a second by knowing how to push buttons. Relevant in terms of future skill set requirements but leaving the brain asleep more and more in daily function.

Unfortunately the increased mental vacuum of not having to remember anything ( eg take your calculator to exams) is manifested in a far higher boredom factor compensated for by massively increased social media use.

If we no longer have a need to train young brains to remember and recall things, perhaps we could give them back the physical activity components of education their childhoods so sadly lack.Surely leaving the mobile in the bag for an hour of exercise three times a week would be far more beneficial than being taught how to pass an exam to give the school/state a high ranking.

I noted with some amusement that a falling national NAPLAN score prompted a call for changes to the NAPLAN process, not changes to how children are groomed to pass it and yet still produced a lower assessment in many instances.

Lets get back to "training the brain" in a more contemporary way, with less emphasis on producing engineered results for academia, bureaucracy and politicians to manipulate for their own relevance.

sdrawkcaB:

28 Jan 2015 11:33:13am

I generally agree with you accept the rote learning part.

There are a range of options available and we should use them all. In learning, rote is part of the suite and so it should be used. I admit it was used too much in my time at school but it should not have been entirely pushed out.

I extend this to the cane. It was well overused during my time and removing it entirely was a mistake. In every 1000 boys, there are probably 10 that need a good canning from time to time. And it wasn't the cane anyway, it was the follow up behavioural techniques that worked, the cane just shut us up for 10 minutes so the head master could get a chance to use some psychology.

On training the brain, I saw with interest a TED talk about mathematics. A teacher is sick of trying to teach kids maths that just do not get it. He fully refuses to accept its his fault kids do not get it because being a maths teacher, he can use some statistics to prove his case. Anyway, he is trying to put together a curriculum of puzzles that stimulate the same thinking as the maths problems do. He fully understands most people do not need anything past years 6 arithmetic in terms of maths skill but are missing out greatly by not getting the 'brain training' afforded by high school by algebra - hence the puzzles.

Ann:

28 Jan 2015 12:50:40pm

Nobody "needs" to know how to dig a ditch to divert rainwater or do emergency resuscitation or how to treat heatstroke either - but you'll find once you have a skill there will be opportunities to use it.

I say this as someone who has always struggled with maths, but I know the richness it can bring to life if you think mathematically.

Jerry:

28 Jan 2015 11:34:51am

Donnelly can only think in terms of individualism not community and society. He has not concept of the structure of society and the way in which suburbs and localities tend to cluster together people of similar cultural and educational backgrounds. Shifting curriculum choice to local management will inevitably lead to frozen social and educational mobility. The expectations of poorly educated people for their children are shaped by their own educational experience. Donnelly's recipe is a device for maintaining ghetto's. In contrast Gonski looked to increasing opportunities and generated a model that ensured investment according to the child's needs, with an opportunity for mobility according to ability.

The LNP educational policy supports division and hierarchy which generates a moribund social class structure. Children are seen as the industrial cannon fodder of the future. Te alternative that Gonski put forward is a model of investing in the potential of all children. For Abbott and Pyne children are seen as a cost to the state. For Gillard and Gonski and Shorten children are seen as a resource no matter what their social background.

Local involvement in schools is vital, but dumping a management task on a local community with poor resources is a recipe for disaster,

sdrawkcaB:

mt_syd:

28 Jan 2015 12:05:07pm

The usual confused mish-mash of ideas from Mr Donnelly.

He conflates the idea of school autonomy with private, and market driven education

He ought to be asking himself why our education performance has decreased despite the fact that the school system has been heading in exactly the way he would like since the Howard government - with ever increasing numbers of students in private schools.

Surely if the dramatic increase in private school enrolments has over the last decade has coincided with a drop in standards, the medicine ought not be even more of the same!

Tory Boy:

mt_syd:

28 Jan 2015 12:58:35pm

yes, apparently our standards have slipped a little according to the latest PISA results, both in absolute terms and as ranked against other countries. But not alarmingly - we are still well ahead of the UK and the US.

There is no breakdown of public vs private in the PISA results, but it is suggestive that the slide has coincided very closely with the implementation of Howards funding policies and increasing enrolments at private schools. That is single biggest change to the school system in the time period.

Strange how people like Donnelly suggest we should aim for a school system more like those which we are already well ahead of

aussieinjapan:

28 Jan 2015 12:09:24pm

The way to get better teaching is not through curriculum or passing the buck to schools which are not in positions to cater for the demands of such devolutions. The way to get better education is through higher pay and hence higher standards of people who are entering the profession.

People who are motivated to teach and then given abilities which will help them teach better will lead to better students.

It does not match that having a better curriculum will result in better teachers. Better training does.

formerteacher:

28 Jan 2015 12:42:46pm

I disagree with your comment about curriculum. Better curriculum is essential to quality teaching and learning. Even poor teachers can perform when the school implements quality curriculum and pedagogy across all subject areas.

aussieinjapan:

Jess:

28 Jan 2015 3:17:09pm

It works in Canberra. Canberra also has no selective public schools. the Government says at this year level students will learn this. It is up to the individual schools how this is taught. ACT also tends to do well in all the standardised testings. (though roughly 2/3rd's of the economy in Canberra is higher education or professional public service). They are supported by the government in developing the curriculum and most teachers have the ability to develop units and lessons that cover parts of the syllabus

Ozchucky:

28 Jan 2015 1:20:00pm

Thanks Kevin,Education is a lot like flying.There are four forces of flight.1 Lift (the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom)2 Thrust (teaching)3 Gravity (dogma)4 Drag (lack of resources, administrivia, bullying, apathy, destructive behaviours in the classroom, corruption, etc.)

What we seek is the maximisation of real "lift".However, the easiest force to manipulate is "thrust". This is why when something happens in society, we say, "we need to teach the kids about this in school"."Drag" is threatening to undo all the good work done by "thrust".

"Gravity (dogma)" ?Rule number 1 dictates "thou shalt not rock the aircraft".Rule number 2 says "if you want to reform the educational system, refer to Rule number 1".

mt_syd:

28 Jan 2015 2:29:58pm

nice analogy

not sure how it adds to the choice/autonomy/market forces debate though

if an engineer was designing an education system im pretty sure they would be looking for evidence of what works and what doesnt, and making sure that models that do not work as well as the current model are avoided

strangely, Kevin Donnelly argues we should move to be more like systems that we are already out performing

themoor:

28 Jan 2015 2:43:28pm

School autonomy is survival of the fittest. It creates an environment where it is easier for 'good schools' to attract good staff and students. The corollary of that is that the poorer and more needy schools and students become even more disadvantaged.

Mr Donnelly doesn't care about those that do badly from the system. He only cares about 'his kind' and ensuring that they can do well. If others end up worse off so be it.

Des Griffin:

28 Jan 2015 2:57:25pm

It is absolutely appalling that, in the face of overwhelming evidence that choice, competition, standardized testing and school autonomy in respect of budgeting and teacher recruitment make no positive contribution to student achievement, people like Kevin Donnelly keep banking on about this. It is almost as ridiculous as climate change denial. The factors which go to make a difference are clearly set out in numerous PISA Reports, in the numerous posts by Trevor Cobbold of Save Our Schools, by Pasi Sahlberg, scores of educational researchers in Australia, the US and many other countries. Mr Donnelly's exhorations do noting except waste everyone's time. Why not advocate the moon being made of cheese!

jennbrad:

GreyBags:

28 Jan 2015 3:26:46pm

We don't 'need' or want more right wing destruction of public education. Autonomy is just code for poor schools suffering while the rich schools do well. It is easy to be autonomous when you are rolling in it.

What we need to due is stop the undue subsidies to private schools. Every cent charged as a fee should be deducted from the government subsidy. That way the lost cost Catholic system still provides 'choice' for those who want children taught by an institution that has covered up child molesting for years. The rich schools can be on their own. There is no way that public funds should contribute to polo fields and indoor heated pools while public students in run down schools study in ancient demountable class rooms.

If you don't want your little princes and princesses to be polluted by mixing with the great unwashed then pay for the whole damn lot. All politicians should be forced to send their children to public schools as well. That would get them fixed.

John51:

28 Jan 2015 4:06:16pm

One of the things I find that does not even get a mention is the lack of a creative approach to stimulating education within our schools themselves. Both major political parties are guilty of this. What we instead get are schools built and designed by bean counters.

If you want to stimulate a desire to learn within a school you don't just need good teachers. You needs schools designed, building and grounds, to stimulate a child's learning desire before they even walk in the school gate. That does not necessarily cost much more money. All it costs is more thought.

Our school building should not only be functional but stimulating and thought provoking from an architectural and design perspective. The grounds should also be designed based to stimulate the creative learning minds of these young students. And within those grounds we should create a story based on teaching students a botanical and biological understanding of the world they live in.

By actually designing schools in this way you make them true places of learning and creativity. Which is obviously something that does not enter the mind of bean counters and political ideologues who build our schools on the least cost and least thought out model. What we get instead is dumbed down version of learning places.

Freddie:

28 Jan 2015 4:17:45pm

Religious Corporation-ism is the biggest scourge of Australia in the 21st century. It takes billions out of the Australian economy each year to benefit of an elite click of thieves, that live high on the unaccountable hog.If private is good then, let it be run like small business. As the saying goes, offer a service and, if the service is good you should attract a lot of business, live reasonably well and, maybe even thrive.Trouble is, 'con artists' and 'spivs' have found a new way to rake in the loot. There everywhere supposedly providing out of date, dilapidated and almost non-existent services in employment, unemployment, training, health, education, aged care, social services. Praying on the vulnerable. bleeding the economy. Lowering standards.All paid for by taxpayer subsidies that are not well accounted for.Where I come from, the top three government high schools provide more up and coming health professional, legal practitioners and educationalists, each year, than all the private schools put together do. One particular church based private school hasn't produced a doctor or lawyer in the past ten years, of those that managed to go on to university. Just industry cannon fodder for 'religious corporations', it would seem. The workplace experience placements are most revealing.The Leaders of the two major political parties are private school educated. All of the factional czars of the major political parties are private school educated, taught to believe they will be leaders one day.Yet the government schools continue to turn out our best and most capable citizens by far. And certainly not brain washing the next generation of kids for the benefit of religious corporationists to use and misuse.

David Ferstat:

28 Jan 2015 4:25:04pm

The flipside of this push toward more independent schools is the interference in school operations by school boards dominated by parents who have no idea of how to run schools, or who have political or religious agenda to push.

This is particularly common in the US, where school boards frequently, nay routinely, ban text and library books because they see something offensive or dangerous in them.

I much, MUCH prefer school operations, especially curricula, run by more dispassionate professionals.

splod1:

28 Jan 2015 5:21:39pm

Autonomous schools? Surely their effectiveness is highly dependent on the quality of the school executive. Principals would love to hire and fire their teachers: that way, they could put together a unified staff of teachers who fit the school's requirements, but also teachers who think just like the principal: no dissension and no challenge to the status quo. Imagine an incompetent principal surrounded by incompetent teachers. What a wonderful prospect.

harvey:

28 Jan 2015 5:48:50pm

There is a battle in the USA over public schooling. On the one hand you have parents who want their kids to receive a good and low cost education.

On the other hand you have a large and wealthy family paying for officials to be elected to end public schooling. There is a lot written about what has happened in Florida, and although defeated at the school level, the juggernaut of wealthy right wing vote buyers is now targeting the legislature.

Pyne wants our universities to be the same as in the USA - his " reforms " include real interest rates on student debt, uncapped tuition fees, public funds for private providers and minimal government funding. US students and graduates are suffering and have terrible debts that some will never pay off.

We don't want this dog eat dog model of education. Australia is the land of the fair go and it should stay this way. The one mistake that Whitlam made was to fund church schools.

bassmanbob:

28 Jan 2015 5:50:25pm

what you learn at school stays with you for life. i started in 1949 at Highate primary WA. this week i was at a hardware store buying shadecloth. there was 2 twenty year olds helping me.we had nothing but a tape measure and our brains. i said what is 3 times 1'8 they didnt know 3seconds later i said 5,4. i then said 3 times table i learnt it in 1950.

Sinekal:

28 Jan 2015 6:39:16pm

Hey bassmanbob, I am a few years behind you but on the same page.

I hate half a kilo of coins floating around in my wallet so (by example) if I buy 4 items at $1.40 and my smallest note is $10, I will give the check out operator a $10 note and 60 cents in coins. Optimistically I will get a $5 note in change and have less coins.

In return I get this sympathetic look that says silly old fart, and on a couple of occasions I have been given the 60 cents back first, along with another $4.40 in coins after the cash register has worked it out. Exactly what I was trying to avoid.

The capacity to calculate, reason and comprehend is certainly not apparent in the supermarket or hardware store. Perhaps its a plot to do with giving away coins or introducing a $5.00 coin. Or maybe its just trust in the machine again ( cash register) because it doesn't interfere with whats really going on in the sales staff's head.

mick:

29 Jan 2015 8:29:26am

the govt needs to run schools not the general public or unionsbecause there is a lot of weak head masters out there and some are completely usless all togetherwe vote a govt in to run the showthat is wat we pay them to do so just do it

Steve_C:

"Come in suckers!!!" "Yeah autonomy is great!! With it you'll get a say in education so education will be more accountable to you!"

What's not being told is the responsibility also shifts, from the Government to those who now hold the reigns!

Once everything that used to be the responsibility of the Government is sold off or palmed off, what need will their be for politicians?

Oh - that's right; we'll still need those who are destined to rule, to continue sticking their overly greedy snouts in the publicly funded trough while telling the overworked horses and overly shorn sheep what to do with the responsibilities that they've palmed off onto them...

Sue B:

30 Jan 2015 6:25:04am

Ya dee, ya de ya de yaa!! Nothing changes and nothing ever will until parents and society start to take responsibility for the feral kids they are sending to school. Values and good study habits don't happen because of some stupid restructure!